Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
I don't believe Scientist are anywhere near "absolute dating" as you
call it. All the methods used are based on assumptions. The link below identifies three assumptions that have to be made in order to 'believe"
the accuracy of these dating methods: 1. The intial condition of the subject 2. The system has been closed(no change to its enviroment)
3. The radioactive decay rate has remained constant.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...adioactive.asp
I could find many examples of failures using carbon 14 dating because
it has been used on objects we can date historically. Presumably the cause has been enviromental contamination. Yet it is assumed that these other methods which can't be verified are reliable. |
Ah creationist science.
The fact of the matter is, at least researchers are applying a scientific method to attempt to figure things out, rather than relying on belief, they rely on proof.
Carbon dating is the best we have at the moment, and as technology increases, so will accuracy.
As well, whether or not there are cases of mis-dating because of environmental contamination, there are cases where even accounting for a lapse within a certain amount of time, the dating has been found to be much older than 5,000 years.
For god sakes, even without carbon dating, it can be proven that certain cultures date back well over 5,000 years, ie the Gradesnica Plaque, dating to 7,000 years ago. There have been records of time well before the current estimations based on what is written in the bible, taken into account by cultures other than in the middle east.
Sometimes I think people forget the rest of the world existed as well.